Now that I have had a chance to do some extended listening on a number of HD stations (FM), it seems to me that the sound quality on the HD-2 channel seems to be better than on the HD-1 channel. I can't do an A-B comaprison so I cannot be absolutely sure. I am also not sure whether this might be due to perception on my part, the fact that the HD-2 chain is purely digital, or that the processing done on the analog signal (HD-1) is not being done on HD-2.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
HD-2 Sound Quality
- Thread starter K6JHU
- Start date
Huh? K6, you're either listening to digital or you're not. If you're listening to the digital HD-1 stream you're hearing digital, period. Unless of course the radio defaults from HD-1 to analog - which case you're listening to analog.
HD-FM stations have 96 kbps to play with. The highest digital quality is yielded when the station is only providing the HD-1 stream, in which case you get the whole 96 kbps. If HD-2 and possibly HD-3 are employed, the 96 kbps gets whacked up however the station wants it allocated. A suggested standard of 32 kbps per channel has been recommended. So if the station you're hearing is using, say, 48 on the HD-1 and 32 on the HD-2, that would explain the difference.
I'm not sure if it's possible to allocate LESS bandwidth to the HD-1 than you do the HD-2. Nor could I fathom a reason for doing this. Seems like you'd want your main channel to sound the best. But I find that HD offends common sense in almost every imaginable way, so perhaps this isn't as far-fetched as it would immediately seem.
(Of course maybe your station is using those tube-type Audimax-Volumax processors for HD-1....)
HD-FM stations have 96 kbps to play with. The highest digital quality is yielded when the station is only providing the HD-1 stream, in which case you get the whole 96 kbps. If HD-2 and possibly HD-3 are employed, the 96 kbps gets whacked up however the station wants it allocated. A suggested standard of 32 kbps per channel has been recommended. So if the station you're hearing is using, say, 48 on the HD-1 and 32 on the HD-2, that would explain the difference.
I'm not sure if it's possible to allocate LESS bandwidth to the HD-1 than you do the HD-2. Nor could I fathom a reason for doing this. Seems like you'd want your main channel to sound the best. But I find that HD offends common sense in almost every imaginable way, so perhaps this isn't as far-fetched as it would immediately seem.
(Of course maybe your station is using those tube-type Audimax-Volumax processors for HD-1....)
I noticed that on the AOR FM station here just today; HD2 sounds better than HD1 - not as much dynamic range, BUT, better 'frequency response'. The main HD1 sounds like its got a POTS STL it's so bad.
- Status